4 ms·

> GPLv2 ... AGPLv3 ... BSD 3-clause None of those licenses are for the user of the software. Some are long(-ish) because they address copyright law and are int

by pdkl95 10y ago

> GPLv2 ... AGPLv3 ... BSD 3-clause None of those licenses are for the user of the software. Some are long(-ish) because they address copyright law and are intended to be read by software authors and distributors, who presumably have the luxury of time to read and research which license they would like to use for their software or 3rd party software they want to redistribute. > Licenses are long and complex not only because they have "bullshit" and "shady stuff" in them. That's fine. Now find a way to explain it plainly to the user so they can make an informed decision. > But how short and simple does a license need to be to make the average user actually read it before clicking OK? Well, that varies, but you can be sure that anybody that clicked OK after only a few seconds did not read anything. Choosing to continue when you know the contract wasn't read is prima facie evidence that no contract was established. However, the larger problem is you think simply presenting legalease and waiting for someone to click OK can ever meet the standard of informed consent[1], which is a much stronger requirement than the click that's required for some contracts. Contract law is sufficient for most of what's in an TOS, but data is very important and most people have a poor understanding of what is being collected and what is possible when their data is aggregated with other sources. To protect people, the higher standard of informed consent should be used before collecting any data. This would only apply to the data you want to collect, not the entire TOS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_element...

danarmak 10y ago
> None of those licenses are for the user of the software Of course licenses are for the user! Without a license, copyright law forbids you from downloading and running an application, let alone copying it to your other PC or emailing a copy to your friend. Addressing copyright law doesn't makes licenses longer, it makes them exist in the first place. It's true that the GPL talks about some additional things like access to the source and the right to modify it, which ordinary, non-programmer users don't care about. But you also need it, or some license, to use the software at all. The BSD one is much simpler, but it's still a license and still needed. Networked services don't fall under copyright law, but other laws exist that prohibit accessing a service (if it requires authentication) except under such terms as the service provider offers to you in a license or other contract. Another example: when you edit a Wikipedia page, you are presented with this text: > By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. The linked Terms of Use, CC BY-SA, and GFDL contain many thousands of words combined, and require a grounding in copyright law to fully understand. Very few people ever give informed consent when editing Wikipedia. > the higher standard of informed consent should be used before collecting any data The Wikipedia article about informed consent says: > Capacity pertains to the ability of the subject to both understand the information provided and form a reasonable judgment based on the potential consequences of his/her decision. Most of the people in the world, and a significant part of the population even in Western countries, won't be able to understand the potential consequences of sharing their data. I can't be sure I fully understand them myself! Twelve years ago, when Gmail was opened, I didn't know de-anonymization of large datasets would prove to be so easy. I didn't imagine Internet mobs doxxing and swatting people. What might be possible ten years from now with the personal data I share today? If the law puts the burden of verifying the user's understanding on the service - meaning they can't trust the user's assurances - the service would need to administer an exam or interview to each prospective user. And indeed Wikipedia says to get informed consent, "the investigators must ensure that subjects have adequate comprehension of the information provided [....] assessing the level of understanding during the meeting". Obviously this isn't practical for Internet services. The biggest source of personal data Facebook gathers is what its users post themselves. This would be true even if they didn't gather anything from Whatsapp messages, tracking cookies, etc. So should any services letting users post often-private content, like blogs and image hosters, require "informed consent"? That's just not practical. I agree there's a problem. I don't see a solution yet. Banning everything until there's a solution is neither practical nor desireable.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Without a license, copyright law forbids you from downloading and running an application That is an idiotic interpretation of copyright that has only been upheld in some court cases. The only copy being made by the user is the transient "copy" in memory. Selling someone a download to use as software while later claiming the necessary and transient copy in memory is a violation of copyright is simply fraud at the point of sale. > copying it to your other PC or emailing a copy to your friend Making additional copies is an entirely separate matter. Do not confuse use of software (or any other creative work) with copying. You seem to be intentionally conflating these terms, probably because of your erroneous belief that some type of permission is needed for use. > GPL talks about some additional things The GPL only talks about distributing extra copies. Have you even read it? From The FSF's FAQ[1] on the GPL: You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. The only reason to accept the GPL is if you are redistributing GPL-licensed software and want the additional distribution rights it grants. > But you also need it, or some license, to use the software at all. If this was true, we'd be in real trouble because the GPL does not grant any kind of usage license. When you last used a typical Linux distro you used software without usage licenses. > Networked services don't fall under copyright law, Correct, though their output may fall under copyright. This is why the AGPL exists to help with the problem of immoral Services as a Software Substitute[2]. > Very few people ever give informed consent when editing Wikipedia. Nor do they need to. The copyright issues are orthogonal to the risks associated with logging personal (meta)data. As far as I know, there isn't any hidden safety risk associated with editing Wikipedia. > I can't be sure I fully understand them myself! While I have studied a lot about data-exposure risks, I know that I only see a tiny portion of the risk-space. Similar to the Schneier Principle where anybody can make crypto that they themselves cannot break (i.e. you're not the smartest person in the world), the risks of data aggregation are probably more numerous than anybody realizes. That's kind of my point: when we have potentially open-ended risk, you need to minimize your exposure. More data stored in more locations is all additional attack surface. > Obviously this isn't practical for Internet services. Security is often in conflict with usability. I personally think that the impact on usability can be minimized through better UI or other solution (which may not exist yet). Perhaps something like a small set of standardized licenses that are very clear and specific in scope. People could be expected to know what those "standard agreements" mean because those licenses could be taught outside of any particular business transaction. > Banning everything until there's a solution is neither practical nor desireable. If the Underwriters Laboratories didn't exist, you wouldn't think it was acceptable to continue using cheap wire ("A more desirable price for the consumer!") and unsafe designs ("it isn't practical to redesign all of our products"). You would (hopefully) insist that your products shouldn't set your house on fire and that we probably need some sort of higher standard (like those provided by the UL and other safety standards). The precautionary principle cautions that when you don't know the risk, you should take the safer path. Making products or services that create massive amounts of new attack surface with completely unknown risk is not the safe path. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

by pdkl95 10y ago

danarmak 10y ago

> None of those licenses are for the user of the software Of course licenses are for the user! Without a license, copyright law forbids you from downloading and running an application, let alone copying it to your other PC or emailing a copy to your friend. Addressing copyright law doesn't makes licenses longer, it makes them exist in the first place. It's true that the GPL talks about some additional things like access to the source and the right to modify it, which ordinary, non-programmer users don't care about. But you also need it, or some license, to use the software at all. The BSD one is much simpler, but it's still a license and still needed. Networked services don't fall under copyright law, but other laws exist that prohibit accessing a service (if it requires authentication) except under such terms as the service provider offers to you in a license or other contract. Another example: when you edit a Wikipedia page, you are presented with this text: > By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. The linked Terms of Use, CC BY-SA, and GFDL contain many thousands of words combined, and require a grounding in copyright law to fully understand. Very few people ever give informed consent when editing Wikipedia. > the higher standard of informed consent should be used before collecting any data The Wikipedia article about informed consent says: > Capacity pertains to the ability of the subject to both understand the information provided and form a reasonable judgment based on the potential consequences of his/her decision. Most of the people in the world, and a significant part of the population even in Western countries, won't be able to understand the potential consequences of sharing their data. I can't be sure I fully understand them myself! Twelve years ago, when Gmail was opened, I didn't know de-anonymization of large datasets would prove to be so easy. I didn't imagine Internet mobs doxxing and swatting people. What might be possible ten years from now with the personal data I share today? If the law puts the burden of verifying the user's understanding on the service - meaning they can't trust the user's assurances - the service would need to administer an exam or interview to each prospective user. And indeed Wikipedia says to get informed consent, "the investigators must ensure that subjects have adequate comprehension of the information provided [....] assessing the level of understanding during the meeting". Obviously this isn't practical for Internet services. The biggest source of personal data Facebook gathers is what its users post themselves. This would be true even if they didn't gather anything from Whatsapp messages, tracking cookies, etc. So should any services letting users post often-private content, like blogs and image hosters, require "informed consent"? That's just not practical. I agree there's a problem. I don't see a solution yet. Banning everything until there's a solution is neither practical nor desireable.

pdkl95 10y ago
> Without a license, copyright law forbids you from downloading and running an application That is an idiotic interpretation of copyright that has only been upheld in some court cases. The only copy being made by the user is the transient "copy" in memory. Selling someone a download to use as software while later claiming the necessary and transient copy in memory is a violation of copyright is simply fraud at the point of sale. > copying it to your other PC or emailing a copy to your friend Making additional copies is an entirely separate matter. Do not confuse use of software (or any other creative work) with copying. You seem to be intentionally conflating these terms, probably because of your erroneous belief that some type of permission is needed for use. > GPL talks about some additional things The GPL only talks about distributing extra copies. Have you even read it? From The FSF's FAQ[1] on the GPL: You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. The only reason to accept the GPL is if you are redistributing GPL-licensed software and want the additional distribution rights it grants. > But you also need it, or some license, to use the software at all. If this was true, we'd be in real trouble because the GPL does not grant any kind of usage license. When you last used a typical Linux distro you used software without usage licenses. > Networked services don't fall under copyright law, Correct, though their output may fall under copyright. This is why the AGPL exists to help with the problem of immoral Services as a Software Substitute[2]. > Very few people ever give informed consent when editing Wikipedia. Nor do they need to. The copyright issues are orthogonal to the risks associated with logging personal (meta)data. As far as I know, there isn't any hidden safety risk associated with editing Wikipedia. > I can't be sure I fully understand them myself! While I have studied a lot about data-exposure risks, I know that I only see a tiny portion of the risk-space. Similar to the Schneier Principle where anybody can make crypto that they themselves cannot break (i.e. you're not the smartest person in the world), the risks of data aggregation are probably more numerous than anybody realizes. That's kind of my point: when we have potentially open-ended risk, you need to minimize your exposure. More data stored in more locations is all additional attack surface. > Obviously this isn't practical for Internet services. Security is often in conflict with usability. I personally think that the impact on usability can be minimized through better UI or other solution (which may not exist yet). Perhaps something like a small set of standardized licenses that are very clear and specific in scope. People could be expected to know what those "standard agreements" mean because those licenses could be taught outside of any particular business transaction. > Banning everything until there's a solution is neither practical nor desireable. If the Underwriters Laboratories didn't exist, you wouldn't think it was acceptable to continue using cheap wire ("A more desirable price for the consumer!") and unsafe designs ("it isn't practical to redesign all of our products"). You would (hopefully) insist that your products shouldn't set your house on fire and that we probably need some sort of higher standard (like those provided by the UL and other safety standards). The precautionary principle cautions that when you don't know the risk, you should take the safer path. Making products or services that create massive amounts of new attack surface with completely unknown risk is not the safe path. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...